the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

"Training against resisting opponents will always make you better at fighting than not training against resisting opponents."

Do you agree or disagree? If so, why?

Lao Tzu wrote -

Knowing others is wisdom, knowing yourself is Enlightenment.

He who controls others may be powerful, but he who has mastered himself is mightier still.

I agree !

Sure, but what does the question have to do with the subject/title?

Dmitri wrote:Sure, but what does the question have to do with the subject/title?

The title (imho) refers to those arts whose exponents claim their techniques are too deadly for the ring (I wont name and shame ) vs
the competitive resistance based "sports" which have to work within set parameters.

The question implies a clearly well founded criticism that too many traditional arts do not provide enough pressure testing,
my own view is that real life violence is something both traditional and sports arts can leave you unprepared for, though
your chances are much better if you're used to doing your stuff against active resistance.
(see ctjla's post in "internal real" marathon)

GrahamB wrote:training against resisting opponents.

You may need to define the term "resisting opponent".

Which of the following meet this definition?

Your opponent always

1. uses force against your force.
2. yields into your force.
3. remains distance from you. You move in, he steps back.
4. lays down on the ground and wants to play the ground game with you.

You may only talk about 1. But IMO, 1,2,3,4 all fit into that definition - against your well and won't give you any opportunity.

It depends on what people mean by resisting opponent
I see people resisting in a way that would get you killed on the street
To put a bear hug on someone with a knife is not the best idea
I trained with Philipinos who they and their teachers had engaged in fights to the death
They trained in the same manner as my tai chi teachers
We have people who have never had a serious street encounter telling us how we should train
Beware my friend of the false path

Since we live in a post-truth world I think it's perfetly fine to make up your own definitions of what "resisting opponent", "street" and "sport" mean to you. They mean whatever you want them to mean.

Agreed with a caveat. Training against resisting opponents provides testing capability. Testing can reinforce or remove assumptions and leads to better adjustments. The more and broader the tests, the less assumed knowledge, the more focus can be brought to an area. Plus other stuff.

Training with a non resisting opponents is also useful. It helps when starting out to get refinement going. It helps to keep training when exhaustion kicks in. It also allows for expression and testing to bring to a resisting opponent. Plus more.

Yin/yang....

But...

Street vs Sport in the title vs the question? They are different things. Krav Maga does group attack resistance training but does not compete. Twd sports point sparring that hardly has any resistance. Just examples of the diff between the title and question.

Well I've got some alternative facts that disagree with your analysis.

GrahamB wrote:"Training against resisting opponents will always make you better at fighting than not training against resisting opponents."

Do you agree or disagree? If so, why?

Just answering the question: I AGREE. Don't really need to say why do I? It's completely obvious.

Or...I guess the scary thing that you may be pointing out is: "It ISN'T completely obvious to some people". Then i'd say...that is a big problem.

GrahamB wrote:"Training against resisting opponents will always make you better at fighting than not training against resisting opponents."

Do you agree or disagree? If so, why?

Agree!

If you have knocked down 100 guys, the chance that you will be able to knock down the 101 guy will be high. Projection is science.

If you want to learn how to fight, fight.

GrahamB wrote:Since we live in a post-truth world I think it's perfetly fine to make up your own definitions of what "resisting opponent", "street" and "sport" mean to you. They mean whatever you want them to mean.

awesome

lucky enough to receive some varying perspectives on this over the past several months. the questions forced me to look at the levels of resistance I was working with. for example, if I always drift towards the most challenging opponent -- the downside is that all I ever work on are my survival skills and offensive development suffers.

I believe it's Josh Waitzkin (chess master, Marcelo Garcia student) who wrote something about 'deep practice', the idea where one is presented with a problem that one can solve, but just barely... the concept is that the greatest immersion and subsequent improvement come in those times of protracted and intense problem solving. an easy win or just getting crushed doesn't really allow for that. now, how to reproduce that environment in a consistent manner seems to be another challenge.

GrahamB wrote:"Training against resisting opponents will always make you better at fighting than not training against resisting opponents."

Do you agree or disagree? If so, why?

The higher purpose of engaging with resistance is to understand nonresistance.
The high understanding of nonresistance is non fighting.
Then one is no longer fighting, one I s no longer a fighter.
The essence of the martial arts is non fighting....
Within this understanding lies the art of it.

As long as one can’t resist engaging with resistance one is still fighting....if fighting is on ones mind how can one relax and enjoy the art.

Really enjoyed reading the different perspectives - thanks. Some good answers on both sides.